Im starting to think I need a time machine to travel to the future where avatar full sensory simulation is the only way. just have the world top player host your mind during a match and you learn all the muscle memory. back in your body and you know all the shots. No practice needed.

Im starting to think I need a time machine to travel to the future where avatar full sensory simulation is the only way. just have the world top player host your mind during a match and you learn all the muscle memory. back in your body and you know all the shots. No practice needed.

Now im stuck with only 2000 frame pers second video. Not good enough.

Click to expand...

I have always be wondering about when that will become reality... but then that perhaps spells the end of human race as we know it.

we become gattaca... only the purest genes are selected, every tennis player will be the same, and matches become totally irrelevant.

Just for the fun of it: i will join the conversation. the higher your level the better strategy you need specially when you have a very glaring weakness. knowing your strength and weakness and taking a gambit is a strategy. federer's BH became a liability when rafa started to dominate, roddick,s ground game started to be a liability when federer footworks showed that power is not everything . Before i get out of topic, here is a strategy for you. federer is a stubborn mule but ever since he had annacone they noticed the rafa's backhand is starting to become a weakness. due to federers hard headedness he tired his best to out hit rafa with his forehand therefore committing errors. since annacone came to his corner you will notice that fed started to hit to rafa's backhand which is showing some results. Nole did the same thing. attacked rafa's backhand.

Also in australian open 2009, when roger knew that andy murray was against him in the finals he had a bunch of tapes to watch the guy play in australia. it's a lot of nonsense that i typed but strategy is very important specially the higher you are.

Just for the fun of it: i will join the conversation. the higher your level the better strategy you need specially when you have a very glaring weakness. knowing your strength and weakness and taking a gambit is a strategy. federer's BH became a liability when rafa started to dominate, roddick,s ground game started to be a liability when federer footworks showed that power is not everything . Before i get out of topic, here is a strategy for you. federer is a stubborn mule but ever since he had annacone they noticed the rafa's backhand is starting to become a weakness. due to federers hard headedness he tired his best to out hit rafa with his forehand therefore committing errors. since annacone came to his corner you will notice that fed started to hit to rafa's backhand which is showing some results. Nole did the same thing. attacked rafa's backhand.

Also in australian open 2009, when roger knew that andy murray was against him in the finals he had a bunch of tapes to watch the guy play in australia. it's a lot of nonsense that i typed but strategy is very important specially the higher you are.

Just for the fun of it: i will join the conversation. the higher your level the better strategy you need specially when you have a very glaring weakness. knowing your strength and weakness and taking a gambit is a strategy. federer's BH became a liability when rafa started to dominate, roddick,s ground game started to be a liability when federer footworks showed that power is not everything . Before i get out of topic, here is a strategy for you. federer is a stubborn mule but ever since he had annacone they noticed the rafa's backhand is starting to become a weakness. due to federers hard headedness he tired his best to out hit rafa with his forehand therefore committing errors. since annacone came to his corner you will notice that fed started to hit to rafa's backhand which is showing some results. Nole did the same thing. attacked rafa's backhand.

Also in australian open 2009, when roger knew that andy murray was against him in the finals he had a bunch of tapes to watch the guy play in australia. it's a lot of nonsense that i typed but strategy is very important specially the higher you are.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct.
The higher the level the more strategy/fitness/mental strength needs to be applied.

Maybe you need to watch closer?
What I saw, talking AussieMen's final, was DJ changing his forehand to a loopier, higher, slower ball, then slicing harder after the first two sets.
Saw him serving out wide more often, moving to net and moving Andy to net, taking advantage of Andy's more suspect movement.
When he get's frustrated, he often started to hit much harder, then backed off after maybe 3 hard shots, because he knew he was about to miss.
And when Andy seemed to recover a bit from his toe and left hip, and started hitting better and better, DJ kept the wide serves, missed too many hard ones, but started serving wide second serves and covering his wide forehand side, forcing Andy to hit either wider or up the line.
You don't think dropshotting a obviously semi injured player is not strategy?

well - this is the 2nd time i watched the final... and honestly every point looks the same.

it's really a shame.

Click to expand...

That's not the point, I agree, boring, it SEEMS like they are just slamming back and forth, and to some degree do, but to say there is no strategy is incorrect, that is demonstrable.

Murray for example slamming to Feds backhand then coming to the net, that's strategy, it's not there is no strategy, it's just not, in my opinion, as stategy intensive as the "Old" game.

I mean todays game is a bit like chess, "If I kill it to his forehand where he can barely get it, where will HE hit it", they did a cool job of showing some patterns, Murray of all people they showed for example going left, then right, then right behind Fed running the wrong way (A Fed move).

I think the whole point of this thread is really saying "Modern Tennis is boring", I agree, but it doesn't mean it's worse or there is no strategy.

One thing I noticed is that both players are susceptible to hard low slices ONCE, or twice, but after than, groove in, move their feet, prep early, and pummel the low slice. So they gave it up after the 3rd set.

i think tennis is suffering from the same disconnect between playability and viewability like soccer is.

don't get me wrong, i love playing and i certainly realize the spin/trajectory part being a fraction of the entire strategy....

being in a slug fest is not boring at all ..... watching one is.

soccer is actually a blast to play.... but on TV... YAWN !!!!!

I think there is an inverse relationship between playability and viewability.

tennis and soccer being great 'playing' sports, because the balls are heavy, heavy balls heavy impact.... you feel that ball pocketing in the hand and that 'thumping' on the foot.... it's great pleasure... but heavy balls also brings down speed, thus poor viewability.

badminton and pingpong..... great to view on TV, players going at faster speed, but playing doesn't feel more interesting, because you can't feel that heavy impact.

One problem was the extremely high view on TV, which did show both baselines clearly, but didn't give the viewer any sense of the spin of the ball, the heights over the net, or the FEEL of the match.
I like a view maybe 12' high, behind the baseline slightly off to one side. I try to go there for every match I watch.
That TV view might as well be from directly overhead, shows both baselines, but takes away the sound, power, speed, and spin from the shots.

One problem was the extremely high view on TV, which did show both baselines clearly, but didn't give the viewer any sense of the spin of the ball, the heights over the net, or the FEEL of the match.
I like a view maybe 12' high, behind the baseline slightly off to one side. I try to go there for every match I watch.
That TV view might as well be from directly overhead, shows both baselines, but takes away the sound, power, speed, and spin from the shots.

Click to expand...

might make watching tennis more enjoyable, if we had different camera angles on a regular basis. if you look at some youtube videos, taken from normal spectators sitting courtside, it´s much more dynamic and you get a better sense of speed and spin, as you say

It seems that the US Open shows only 2-5 minutes of court level action per match; and they're one of the better shot tournaments. I can't remember seeing a single point shot from the court level at this year's Aussie Open, although some of the slow-mo replay's were great.

The reason for the high angle is availibility of camera mount spots and the need for the non serious tennis player to see the action as they know it.
As tennis enthusiasts, most of us know the best angle to watch a match is from somewhere 8-15' high, behind the baseline and slightly off to one side.
People who don't play tenins don't understand how they can see the other court, but it's not important. We need to see the reaction of the speed to spin, and the near player's movements while tracking the far player in the background....just like we PLAY our tennis.

might make watching tennis more enjoyable, if we had different camera angles on a regular basis. if you look at some youtube videos, taken from normal spectators sitting courtside, it´s much more dynamic and you get a better sense of speed and spin, as you say

Maybe not.
Most TV coverage, camera is all over the track, and one view next to the driver inside the car, while another points backwards to the cars behind.
Nobody get's motion sickness, this is the era of GoPro.
But best tournament view are uncrowded days when you get to walk around and try the different vantage points.

Maybe not.
Most TV coverage, camera is all over the track, and one view next to the driver inside the car, while another points backwards to the cars behind.
Nobody get's motion sickness, this is the era of GoPro.
But best tournament view are uncrowded days when you get to walk around and try the different vantage points.

Click to expand...

the first few days of a tournament, when it´s not to crowded and you can walk around and go to different courts to see matches are the best.
much better than watching tennis on tv

They USED to give that view on a few points, but player's complained about the huge camera behind them, the noise, and the fuss and bother of the cameraman.
Maybe with the modern smaller hand helds, it might be pertinent. But since the organizers get big money for low level seats behind the baseline, why should they save those seats for TV when the demand is not there?

They USED to give that view on a few points, but player's complained about the huge camera behind them, the noise, and the fuss and bother of the cameraman.
Maybe with the modern smaller hand helds, it might be pertinent. But since the organizers get big money for low level seats behind the baseline, why should they save those seats for TV when the demand is not there?

Click to expand...

demand can be created, we see it everyday in advertising.
and modern cameras are very small, in skiing they use a helmet camera, sureshs would be motion sick without end

I think for TV use, you'd need a tripod at the very least, or a steady cam setup. Handheld TV cameras are still pretty big and somewhat obtrusive, as you can see from watching TV news.
But yes, consumer demand can make things happen.

I think for TV use, you'd need a tripod at the very least, or a steady cam setup. Handheld TV cameras are still pretty big and somewhat obtrusive, as you can see from watching TV news.
But yes, consumer demand can make things happen.

Click to expand...

the other side of the story is, that fewer tennis tournaments are shown on tv,mostly due to high fees that the tv stations aren´t willing to pay.

You seem to get a better sense of pace and trajectory when the camera is at somewhat of an angle. I don't understand why it always has to be parked in the middle of the court-- especially in this widescreen era.

Until few years ago, players had real weapons and also weakness -- take champs from last gen..
(Rog is exception here.. considering him from the last gen)
Pete: weapon-serve, fh / weakness-bh
Andre: weapon-fh, bh / weakness-serve
Rog: weapon-serve, fh / weakness-bh

But as we get to the next gen (Nadal, Novak, Murray... plus other top pros), we seen a major change in that dynamic...
that strength/weakness gap is getting thinner and thinner.. they're well rounded.

Can we say that strategy* is.. having a plan (tactics) to
1. playing to your opponent weakness
2. force your opponent play to your strength

Now, with players having very little weakness, how can one have a set strategy?

So, IMO this old definition of strategy is changing (evolving)....
Fitness "be really fit to outlast your opponent" is part of new strategy.

There will still be the classic strategy* (as defined above).. but it is used a little against non top players who still have some weakness.
But against the top players, it is replaced with a new type of strategy..
which is very dynamic one which has many mini strategies depending on the situations (or how the opponent is playing that day)